68 LRTS 53(2) “Wholly Visionary” The American Library Association, the Library of Congress, and the Card Distribution Program By Martha M. Yee This paper offers a historical review of the events and institutional influences in the nineteenth century that led to the development of the Library of Congress (LC) card distribution program as the American version of a national bibliog- raphy at the beginning of the twentieth century. It includes a discussion of the standardizing effect the card distribution program had on the cataloging rules and practices of American libraries. It concludes with the author’s thoughts about how this history might be placed in the context of the present reexamination of the LC’s role as primary cataloging agency for the nation’s libraries. n October 28, 1901, the Library of Congress (LC) began to distribute its Ocataloging to the libraries of the United States in the form of cards. Herbert Putnam, in his 1901 Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress, called the card distribution program “the most significant of our undertakings of this first year of the new century.”1 By 1909 these cards were being prepared according to interna- tional standard cataloging rules agreed upon by the American Library Association (ALA) and the British Library Association.2 Once these rules were adopted by other libraries, a cooperative approach to the national bibliography became possi- ble. In this new cooperative approach, cataloging done at many different libraries could be distributed through the LC cards and made part of the national biblio- graphic structure. This ingenious scheme, by which a shared cataloging program to lower cataloging costs produced the equivalent of a national bibliography at the same time, has become the envy of the rest of the world. This approach is now very much taken for granted in the United States, but it could not have happened without the conjunction of a number of economic, political, and social factors at the turn of the century, without the intervention of several visionary men (among Martha M. Yee ([email protected]) is Cataloging Supervisor, University them Melvil Dewey, Herbert Putnam, and J. C. M. Hanson), without the actions of California–Los Angeles Film and of the ALA and the LC as institutions, and without the inaction of the publishing Television Archive. industry. This paper explores how this conjunction of factors came about, and Many thanks to Edmond Applebaum, then speculates about implications for the current environment of shared catalog- Maurice “Mitch” Freedman, Michael Gorman, and Thomas Mann, all much ing and the role of the LC therein. more expert in both the history and the current scene than I, who were kind enough to read over drafts of this paper and help me strengthen my arguments A Visionary Plan and correct my errors. All errors that remain are my own. The idea had been in the air for half a century or more. The LC’s Annual Report Submitted July 14, 2008; returned to for 1902 includes a “Bibliography of cooperative cataloguing . (1850–1902),” author for revision August 11, 2008; revised and resubmitted October 2, which cites articles on this subject from all over the world. In 1852, Charles C. 2008, and accepted for publication. Jewett proposed his famous stereotyping plan, by which the Smithsonian would 53(2) LRTS “Wholly Visionary” 69 collect cataloging from U.S. libraries and store it in the form and operated until the LC began distributing cards in 1901. of stereotyped plates, which would be made accessible to The number of subscribers was never high, largely because any requesting library. The plan failed for technical reasons, the all-or-none subscription practice mentioned above was and because Joseph Henry, Secretary of the Smithsonian maintained.8 Undoubtedly, lack of standardization also con- and Jewett’s boss, did not agree that this would be part of tinued to be a major factor. the proper function of the Smithsonian.3 In 1877, a year after the founding of the ALA, a third In 1876, the ALA was founded. According to Putnam, possibility for the solution to this problem was already being a “main purpose” in its founding was “a centralization of suggested by Melvil Dewey: “Is it practicable,” he asked, cataloguing work, with a corresponding centralization of “for the Library of Congress to catalogue for the whole bibliographic apparatus.”4 At the first meeting of the ALA country?”9 In the next paragraph, he points out that the first in 1876, Melvil Dewey, instrumental in the ALA’s founding, step in the solution of the problem will be the development proposed that “the preparation of printed titles for the com- of standard cataloging rules. In making these two sugges- mon use of libraries” be discussed, stating, “There somehow tions, Dewey outlined the two major ways in which the seems to be an idea among certain leaders of our craft that ALA would contribute to the development of the American such a thing is wholly visionary, at least, their failure to take approach to a national bibliography. any practical steps in the matter would seem to indicate such a belief. Now, I believe, after giving this question con- siderable attention, that it is perfectly practicable.”5 Cataloging Rules and Standards Over the next twenty-five years, the ALA tried a num- ber of different ways to put this “visionary” scheme into Heisey and Henderson describe the many codes being effect. Attempts to induce publishers to furnish cataloging followed by American libraries in 1900, when it became for their new books failed to gain the support of librarians apparent that the vision of centralized cataloging of which and publishers for a number of reasons detailed by Scott and librarians had been dreaming might be realized by the LC.10 Ranz.6 Among them are the following: The ALA had approved a code of rules in 1883, but “they were not detailed enough to provide a universal American 1. Not all publishers cooperated; many were unwilling to standard for cataloging,” and they simply became one supply free advance copies of publications for catalog- among many codes in use in the country.11 This might be ing. This delayed receipt of cards. compared to the situation today in which those seeking to 2. Preparation of quality cataloging would have delayed control electronic resources use various metadata schemes. listings that the book trade needed promptly. The three leading codes in use were Cutter’s, Dewey’s, and 3. Objectives for entries for commercial purposes were Linderfelt’s.12 Heisey observed that “it was the practice, as bound to differ from the objectives for entries for well as the preference of most cataloguers to use several library purposes (e.g., there were differences of opin- codes, taking what was most advantageous from each.”13 In ion over what was acceptable content for annotations). December 1900, the ALA publishing board appointed the 4. Publishers were reluctant to support what was per- Advisory Committee on Cataloging Rules, chaired by J. C. ceived of as another commercial enterprise. M. Hanson, head of the cataloging department at the LC, 5. Schemes required that libraries subscribe to all or none and charged the committee with recommending typography of the cataloging. and format for the new cards and suggesting changes in the 6. The number of titles covered was too limited for the ALA rules to make them suitable for use in the new cen- larger libraries, but too large for the smaller libraries tralized cataloging project.14 The LC had already adopted to justify the expense. cataloging rules in May 1898; these rules were based on 7. Card sizes in libraries had not yet been standardized. Cutter’s rules.15 Cutter was one of the members of the ALA 8. Librarians were undoubtedly uncertain about the committee—thus, as Dunkin pointed out, the new code, permanence of the schemes, any one of which would published in 1908, “owed much to Cutter.”16 However, there have required “basic and far-reaching changes in their was a significant difference. Cutter’s statement of “Objects” normal cataloguing practices.”7 and “Means” had disappeared, as had his discussions of the 9. Undoubtedly the major factor was the fact that catalog- rationale behind individual rules. According to Dunkin, ing rules had not yet been standardized. “The new code was a set of rules without reasons.”17 The rules were not published until 1908, largely because The second approach tried by the ALA, after various of the arrival in 1904 of a request from the Catalogue Rules attempts to enlist the publishers failed, was to try to set up Committee of the British Library Association that the ALA a central cataloging bureau under the auspices of the ALA consider making the new code a joint Anglo-American code. itself. This was established at the Boston Athenaeum in 1896 Exchanges by correspondence delayed the publication of 70 Yee LRTS 53(2) the code by several years, but, when published, it repre- in order to bring its own rules into approximate sented agreement by the Americans and the British on all agreement with those of the American Library but 8 of 174 rules.18 Association. No doubt these concessions have The new rules were also designed to take into account served to retard its own work and have at times the practices of the Library of Congress, which, after all, been the cause of some confusion in its records. was a large research library. The committee had decided On the other hand, the fact that the rules now soon after its formation that the plan for the code should governing its catalogues have been accepted by the be “carried out for the large library of scholarly character, two associations which include the great major- since the small libraries would only gain by full entries, ity of libraries in the United Kingdom and in the while the large libraries must lose if bibliographical fullness United States represents in itself a great advance is not given.”19 Dan Lacy questioned the rationale that full in cooperation and uniformity of methods, and will entries are needed for large scholarly libraries, which may have an influence in its future relations to libraries originally have been Hanson’s.